Talk:Star Trek: Specter of the Past/archive
As I mentioned on the author's talk page: :Unfortunately, I think you might be under a misconception about what this wiki is. The STEU is an encyclopedia of information from fan fiction and fan-produced material; it is not a story-telling venue. If you want a place to publish your Star Trek: Specter of the Past story, I would suggest FanFiction.net, The Trek Writer's Guild, or Memory Gamma, which is a wiki for posting Trek stories. Allow me to reiterate: the STEU is not a place where you can write and post your story. We're here for encyclopedic articles about fan-created material. Please use one of the sites listed above or another venue to continue your fan fiction. If this is indeed just a summary of a story you have written, then it certainly needs an introduction, something like "Spectre of the Past is a fan fiction short story about..." Also, please provide an external link to that story so it may be sourced. Thank you. --TimPendragon 21:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC) This is still a page in progress, I'm trying to get the plotline summarized which is the hard part. The rest is window dressing and I assure you will come later. Have a bit of patience! Also bear in mind this is the first Wiki article on any platform I've written from the ground up. I've never done this before so the Wiki software is new to me. And I've read the guidelines on what this is and is not and I can assure you, "my" story is appropriate. The only portion currently available for public consumption can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU2uMnlzF80 This is an early rough draft of the prologue sequence but there's much more where this came from and an official site for this project is also on the way. Merely because I don't have the same big-budget production values as some of the others out there in no way reduces the status of this as a "fan film." I agree with you, Tnpir4002, and I'm starting to get worried about the way we define sourced material here. How much of your stuff that you have written here can be traced back to an online source, as an example? How is what you are doing, Tim, better than Tnpir4002? Just as a debate argument, though. Perhaps this summary is a bit long, but it matches the tone of a summary. It matches the word of the law, if not the spirit. --Talon Lardner 00:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC) :Getting back to the point of Tim's (an administrator, I might add) comments, which is what this talk page is about, it comes down to STEU is not a story-telling venue. The article tells a story, and this is the issue Tim has concern about. : , great that this is your first wiki entry, and thank you, but please, before diving in and creating articles, the best thing might have been to: :*See what other series' articles are like, i.e. , , Star Trek: Daedalus, etc., then molding your article to reflect that. :*Write up a similar article in a text editor like Notepad, Microsoft Word, etc. :*Then upload and format the article in the editor on here. :*Ask for assistance if you aren't sure about anything. :I'd also like to respectively point out that episode articles are usually separate from the series articles, i.e. has "Catalyst, Part One", "Isolation", et al. :I had an article similar to this one ("Lady Lazarus"), , and I was told the same thing as Tnpir4002, so I think fair is fair, and consistent is consistent. :I'm not ripping on anyone -- that's not my intention -- but I think we should stick to the guidelines on these areas, please. Thanks, and if you need help, Tnpir4002, just ask. I or someone else will help as best as we can! :) --usscantabrian 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ::Sorry, my last comments about the episodes being separate pertain to a series only. If this is a movie, then disregard. Brain is still on holiday mode! Sorry! :) --usscantabrian 04:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I definitely don't refute the fact that this is long...I wish you could see the script, at some points Data gets long-winded even for Data!...so I'd be very grateful to anyone who would be willing to help me pare it down to something more manageable. That was one thing I had to learn to do when I was editing the actual speaking script, start taking lines out and I'm sure that'll keep happening right up until the thing gets released. ( :Your last sentence is probably one of the best reasons why you should not put up a detailed summary of the film before it is finished. As you said, it's a work in progress and changes will be made, which means more fiddling with the article. It would probably save you time and effort not having the detailed summary and instead just having a short and general outline of the plot, plus you maintain the mystery and suspense of the film for when it is released in 6 months time. But that is totally up to you. :The article lacks wikification and styling as per the manual of style. :When you're posting comments on talk pages don't forget to sign your comments with – ~~~~. Also don't forget to use the Show preview feature when editing (it is the button next to Save page). It will display the page as it will appear when you save it allowing you to read through and make minor fixes before you save the page. It will cut down the number of quick minor edits you'll make and stop them from clogging up the page. – 06:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Okay, looks like I stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest here, and that wasn't my intent whatsoever. When my initial comment was made, all that was in the main article was the first paragraph of the (current) "act one" section, and it had been sitting by itself for a while. That, by itself, lent the impression that this was going to be another one of those "somebody thinks this is FF.net" type articles which have been popping up with some frequency. Had the user responded to the comment I'd left on his talk page, and explained what was happening, that would have helped clarify the matter, and I would have backed off instantly and offered further assistance. Instead, after some time another paragraph was posted (which I admit I didn't read carefully enough to pick up the tense), and then the "no source" tag was removed, all still without comment or response. I replaced the tag, and left it at that. Hours later now and I'm back, and what should have been a simple administrative/editorial issue blew into a minor s--tstorm. For that, I apologize, especially to you . Communication is the backbone of the community. If it seemed that I was coming down on you, that was not my intent at all. Basically, I should have waited longer before I said anything (but then, if this had turned out to be inappropriate, I would have felt just as stupid as I do now). In any case, I'm sure we all wish you the best of success with your project, and are glad for your participation in this wiki. If , myself, or anyone else here can be of help, please let us know. This rather unpleasant first impression notwithstanding, we really are a friendly lot. :-) --TimPendragon 06:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC) no hard feelings for anyone, i assure you :) i didn't realize anything had been left on my Talk page until i saw the reference here; like i said, new to Wikia. as i said i'm very open to anyone who can help me trim down the verbosity of that summary, i know it's long-winded at times. ( Likewise, I apologise for my tone, Tim, I was cruising the site while I was in class, and I didn't realise how quickly "GRR! I am frustrated at Cisco IOS!" turns into "GRR! I am frustrated at STEU Policy Quirks!" Now that I cam cooled down, I can see how you could be mistaken at what was all going on. Sorry, Tim, let's work for a better STEU together, shall we? --Talon Lardner 22:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Rationale for Copyedit Notice At this point, the only serious deficiency in this article is a lack of wikification, and that's something we can all help work on. The summary is highly-detailed, and I really don't think it needs to be cut down, unless others feel strongly about it. Beyond linking to other articles, and perhaps some general minor SPAG policing, I don't think the copyedit notice needs to remain much longer. Perhaps we should create a notice for "better wikification needed" rather than the standard copyedit tag. --TimPendragon 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC) And for what it's worth folks I also apologize for the role I played in getting everyone stirred up...my heart was in the right place, I assure you :-) And just curious, what's SPAG? ( :SPAG is short for SPelling And Grammar. – 02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::Actually, it's Spelling, Punctuation And Grammar. :-) --TimPendragon 04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC) This article still hasn't dealt with the issues above, wikification, SPAG and styling (ship names and classes). – 07:06, March 1, 2010 (UTC) I'm still waiting for an explanation of the continued presence of the copy/edit notice. I don't feel it belongs there anymore, but you've restored it twice after I removed it. If you think specific problems still exist, speak up. There are no spelling mistakes, and from what I can tell the text that's there observes the highest standards of grammar. Tnpir4002 21:38, March 3, 2010 (UTC) ::I think what Jono is saying is that the copy-edit notice is still up because you have not added links to other articles, i.e. Braiyon Garr and Gaius Reyf (two that could have their own articles I can see right away). ::Also, formatting of ship names (it should be or in the first instance and then Enterprise or Enterprise-E after that, not USS F. Scott Fitzgerald NCC-85107-A -- this should be in the first instance, F. Scott Fitzgerald-A or F. Scott Fitzgerald in later mentions. ::I personally think the blow-by-blow description is a little long-winded myself (coming from a long-winded person!) and I was asked to reduce some of my episode articles to make them more generalised, and you should probably do the same. Some of the information you have on this page belongs on other pages (i.e. under "Cast", all those ships and people could be put into their own articles). ::I hope this helps a little bit, but if you need help, just ask. --usscantabrian 00:07, March 4, 2010 (UTC) Page cleanup As per the sister Star Trek: Retribution page, i have started cleaning up this one. In particular a lot of the NPOV comments need to be reworked into a wiki-standard. I've also added citations against claims the author has made in regards to his project (such as involvement by alumni), if these aren't backed up, they should be removed. As this can been seen as the author simply lying to make his project look better then it is. I've also cited a number of other issues on the page, they will need to be resolved or removed. - 01:42, August 10, 2011 (UTC) ::Further examination of the page, there is a number of "dubious" claims on the page that have no references anywhere on the web, these need to be removed. Also, when making a comment and presenting it as fact, such as "Star Trek Armageddon Clock members have discussed this and consider specter a competition", the reference MUST be linked to the fact, not just provided as an external link at the end of the page for the viewer to find. Any facts that are unreferenced must be removed, unless linked to - 06:09, August 10, 2011 (UTC)